How can one man make such an influence on the whole world? He must be God. Or a freakin genius. I really wonder what this guy's IQ was. 30 years old when he supposedly started his teaching. Hey, that's nothing new. I still know a few guys in their late 20s that live at home with their parents. Somehow I seriously doubt they will be remembered 2000 years from now... [Apologies to any 20-something year olds still living in their parents' basements.]
So how is it that this one man could make such an influence in such a short time? I mean, for God's sake, the man died when he was 33. Yet he left behind a legacy which to this day is enormous in numbers. 2000 years is certainly a long time. So how could he accomplish all this? By being thorough. Or as thorough as possible, is what I say. Though there are still many loopholes, I think most everyone on this site would agree that in order to start a religion that will be believed in for centuries to come, you have to have your chit together. And boy did this guy do a good job of that. Starting off with stating he was the son of God. Boy was that ballsy. But the more I look into it, the more I realize that his work, even with all the loose ends, makes for one very believable religion. It does not surprise me that there are so many believers out there still to this day. Jeez, when you still have the Catholic Church running schools in the year 2005, it's no surprise that there are still people who die for their faith. 12 years of Catholic school can sure work different ways with different people. Some end up athiests. Others end up firm disciples. Still others have a hate for anything or anyone that has a slight difference of opinion than they do. If God really does exist, He certainly works in mysterious ways, that's for sure. But I digress. [Note to all readers: after re-reading this paragraph, I have noticed that it may come across as derogatory to some readers. Please do not take it this way. It was more of an observation, not meant to have a derogatory connotation.]
Anyway, what I was really trying to address before I got thrown off track is the following question: Allowing for the possibility that Jesus Christ is not God (if he was truly only a man), were his intentions for the betterment of mankind (really and truly), or for the glorification and remembrance of himself as one of the greatest figures (if not THE greatest) in history, or was it a combination of both?
Boy, is this gonna open up a can of worms or what?
In any case, whether he is truly God, or a "god", in my estimation, he was a freakin genius. Though this probably sounds brash and cocky coming from a know-nothing teenage punk, I believe he was at least 10 times smarter, more intelligent, and more imaginative, than Einstein. I wouldn't even know how to begin to explain this assertion, or even if it's possible to know the value of how many times over someone is smarter than someone else. It's just a gut feeling I have from analyzing the minimal knowledge I have learned so far. Who knows what he could have accomplished had he been living in our times. The possibilities are endless.
I look forward to the feedback. Good, bad, I'll take it all.
Originally posted by lioyankIf Christ is truly what History states He was, you are faced with a Trilemma - Lord, Liar, Lunatic.
How can one man make such an influence on the whole world? He must be God. Or a freakin genius. I really wonder what this guy's IQ was. 30 years old when he supposedly started his teaching. Hey, that's nothing new. I still know a few guys in their late 20s that live at home with their parents. Somehow I seriously doubt they will be remembered 2000 years fr ...[text shortened]... The possibilities are endless.
I look forward to the feedback. Good, bad, I'll take it all.
Originally posted by lioyankHere is another way to think about this issue.
How can one man make such an influence on the whole world? He must be God. Or a freakin genius. I really wonder what this guy's IQ was. 30 years old when he supposedly started his teaching. Hey, that's nothing new. I still know a few guys in their late 20s that live at home with their parents. Somehow I seriously doubt they will be remembered 2000 years fr ...[text shortened]... The possibilities are endless.
I look forward to the feedback. Good, bad, I'll take it all.
Human beings have a tendency to deify individuals. This involves regarding them as a lot more wonderful that they in fact are, even if they are fairly wonderful compared to most people. Examples abound: cult leaders, ideology manufacturers, religious figures, Jon Juans, Femme Fatales, and pop stars (e.g., Elvis).
Now, while the probability of any one deified person, of considerable but not supermundane talents, would have inordinate influence over the course of history, it is probably that *one* of their number will do so *eventually*, given the robust human propensity to deify throughout the ages. That is, the right circumstances will come together a few times in history to make someone immortal (by reputation, I mean). So, by this reasoning, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammed are the lucky ones: there are a lot of "also rans" who just didn't make it, and who we don't revere.
It's a bit like the dog (or dogs) who played "Lassie". There have been lots of smart and handsome colllies throughout the years. But circumstances only conspired to permit one or a select few to make it to the silver screen. This is not because the dog or dogs who made it were divinely special: they were high quality dogs favored by circumstance.
Jesus was certainly a cool guy, at least most of the time (I feel sorry for the Mustard tree he killed in a tantrum, the "re"possessed swine he sent to a watery grave, and the hypocrites sent to burn in hell). Son of Man, yes; son of God, well not necessarily.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAddendum: The word "deified" spells the same backwards as forwards. Is there a long word that does so?
Here is another way to think about this issue.
Human beings have a tendency to deify individuals. This involves regarding them as a lot more wonderful that they in fact are, even if they are fairly wonderful compared to most people. Examples abound: cult leaders, ideology manufacturers, religious figures, Jon Juans, Femme Fatales, and pop stars (e.g. ...[text shortened]... ve, and the hypocrites sent to burn in hell). Son of Man, yes; son of God, well not necessarily.
Originally posted by HalitoseNo. If the Bible contains an accurate summary of Jesus' teachings, then Jesus was either telling the truth about everything, lying about everything, mistaken about everything, or some combination of these three options. But why should we think that the Bible contains an accurate summary of Jesus' views? In particular, why should we think that Jesus thought that he was the only Son of God?
If Christ is truly what History states He was, you are faced with a Trilemma - Lord, Liar, Lunatic.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeTiming is everything, isn't it?
Here is another way to think about this issue.
Human beings have a tendency to deify individuals. This involves regarding them as a lot more wonderful that they in fact are, even if they are fairly wonderful compared to most people. Examples abound: cult leaders, ideology manufacturers, religious figures, Jon Juans, Femme Fatales, and pop stars (e.g. ...[text shortened]... ve, and the hypocrites sent to burn in hell). Son of Man, yes; son of God, well not necessarily.
Originally posted by OmnislashSupose there are none. Then those of us who think that Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, etc. were all enlightened masters can claim that there is no evidence Jesus thought of himself as spiritually unique, and we can explain Biblical claims to the contrary as typical hagiography.
And if there are?
Originally posted by bbarrIf there are none, you could make that claim. If there are, you could still make that claim. The best way to know what he said would be to read the NT. 😉
Supose there are none. Then those of us who think that Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, etc. were all enlightened masters can claim that there is no evidence Jesus thought of himself as spiritually unique, and we can explain Biblical claims to the contrary as typical hagiography.
(pardon the evasiveness. I do not see anything beneficial in copy/paste the NT and a long sermon to boot. Either it is understood comprehensively or it is not. Any singular quote can be misinterpreted.)
Originally posted by OmnislashSure, I can make any claim I like. The question is whether objections to the claim have direct scriptural support in their favor.
If there are none, you could make that claim. If there are, you could still make that claim. The best way to know what he said would be to read the NT. 😉
(pardon the evasiveness. I do not see anything beneficial in copy/paste the NT and a long sermon to boot. Either it is understood comprehensively or it is not. Any singular quote can be misinterpreted.)
I don't mind you being evasive, that's par for the course when it comes to these topics.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeDeleveled, as in "the vampire deleveled my fighter two levels!!!"
Addendum: The word "deified" spells the same backwards as forwards. Is there a long word that does so?
Aidemedia - a genus of finches.
Allenella - A genus of molluscs.
There are others on this website:
http://members.aol.com/gulfhigh2/words5.html